Wednesday, January 13, 2016

This is a guest post from an acquaintance of mine with an interest in history. While I don't agree with all of it, I thought his perspective was interesting and worth sharing here. - Vox

The mass sexual assaults that blighted Cologne - and the despicable response of Cologne mayor Henriette Reker - has highlighted, once again, the danger facing Europe. Indeed, Europe has not faced a danger like this since the final days of the Roman Empire, when the once-proud society could no longer muster the will to marshal its still quite-considerable resources and fight the barbarian incursion. Rome committed suicide a very long time before Rome itself was stormed.

Committed suicide? Yes, it did; very few Romans truly believed that it was worth trying to fight to save Rome. The elites cared nothing for the suffering of their people, who found the barbarians potential allies in the face of crushing taxation and heavy oppression; the civil bureaucracy was bloated and corrupt; the army too weak to crush the barbarians ... Rome decayed from within long before the end finally came. And that, alas, may be the fate of Western Europe, unless we take steps now.

Let me see if I can place the current danger in historical context.

The Second World War did immense physical and psychological damage to Europe. Physically, the continent lay in ruins; France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway had been invaded and occupied, Germany had been crushed and then split in two, Britain had escaped occupation, but had exhausted itself trying to win the war. Psychologically, the continent’s self-confidence had been destroyed. Nationalism and militarism had been thoroughly discredited. Worse, perhaps, Europe was no longer a power in the world. Power had passed firmly to the USA and the USSR.

If this wasn't bad enough, the Cold War created a whole series of additional problems. Western Europe needed the United States, as the US was the only hope of a conventional defence against the USSR. But Europe was (rightly) terrified of a Third World War. The USSR might not be able to do more than limited damage to the USA, yet there was no doubt that the USSR could turn Western Europe into a radioactive wasteland. Victory would be a meaningless phrase. This spurred a Europe-wide policy that, on one hand, fought to keep the US engaged and, on the other hand, restrain the US from picking a fight with the USSR.

The European nightmare was a flashpoint in East Asia - a second Korean War, perhaps - that turned into a general war. Much of the anti-Americanism that pervades European thought owes its origins to the concern that America would trigger an unwinnable (for Europe) war.

Meanwhile, there was also a serious need to curb the appeal of communism. Post-war Europeans were desperate. The USSR might not need to invade to take over. European elites countered this by creating both a social welfare system - intent on reducing human misery, which fed radicalism - and working desperately to build up Europe’s economy, while relying on the US to guarantee security and keep the Germans in their place.

It was into this poisoned environment that the first waves of mass migration arrived.

There are, I should note before I go any further, two different types of immigration. The first is the single person or handful of people who move to a new country and adapt to their new environment. They speak the language, they marry natives and generally they repay their hosts for welcoming them. Such immigrants are a blessing and very few people would argue otherwise. They may look different, but they’re largely culturally identical to the natives. Their children don’t think of themselves as anything else.

This isn’t a comfortable process. Moving from Britain to America, two nations that are practically cousins, can cause no end of culture shock. The immigrant may feel overwhelmed, or out of place, and unsure if he truly wants to belong. But the single immigrant, the isolated case, is surrounded by people from the new country. He has no choice, but to learn to become like them - or at least to learn how to get along.

The second type, by contrast, occurs when a large number of migrants arrives at roughly the same time. They may have decent motives, like the first type, but they have a tendency to clump together with their own kind. That’s human nature. That’s why you see expatriate settlements of Westerners in many countries; they prefer the company of their fellow Westerners to the natives. They have no strong incentive to go native. Indeed, they may have a strong disincentive to go native, because the familiarity of home is all around them. Being with people who think like you is comforting, particularly when you are surrounded by a much larger community that doesn’t.

But it is this form of immigration that has caused many of our problems. To paraphrase a line from SM Stirling, flavouring the stew is one thing, but making a whole new stew pot is quite another.

Europe’s first wave of migrants were mainly the products of decolonisation. For example, A large number of Indians arrived in Britain from Uganda after they were evicted by Idi Amin. France took in a vast number of Arabs from North Africa after losing a war in Algeria and its colony there. Their arrival was not warmly welcomed by many of the locals, which caused major problems for the elites. A rise in nationalism would doom the planned confederation of European states (which eventually would become the European Union) and potentially reawaken dangers that had nearly ripped the continent apart twice. Their response was to slander everyone who objected as fascists, and to draw links between them and the Nazis (it helped that some of the objectors were genuine fascists). There was considerable grassroots opposition to immigration, but very little political opposition.

The increasing numbers of migrants, however, started to produce a whole new stew pot of ethnic minority communities. Their existence as potential voters, combined with concessions by politicians, allowed them to bring in even more immigrants. Why should a family not be allowed to live in the West, they asked, when the head of the household already has permission to reside there? Boys and girls raised in Britain, for example, were pushed into marrying boys and girls back home, who would then apply for immigration rights as spouses of British citizens. Instead of assimilating, the constant arrival of newcomers ensured that the communities remained isolated.

This probably requires some explanation. If you grow up in a minority community, much of your identity is drawn from the fact that you are not part of the majority. You will be surrounded by people who are like you, by a tribe united against the outside world, a tribe that has strong ties to the homeland. Doing something without being noticed by someone who will report back to your parents is extremely difficult, particularly if you are a young girl. Many of the older folks don’t speak the native tongue. A dissident trapped within such a community, like a girl who doesn’t want to be forced into marriage, has very little hope of leaving it. And if she does, she is cut off from the community forever.

Indeed, one explanation for the spread of radical Islam to the young is that it has an appeal to children who are otherwise tightly controlled by their parents. They find that they can embrace the religion and use it to shame their parents who are not practicing Muslims.

The larger the community, the less truck it has with outsiders. It doesn't care for outside interference, nor for outside law. Attempts to impose even the basics of Western law in minority communities meet with heavy resistance: Western law, after all, does not run in non-Western countries. Customs ranging from female circumcision to arranged and forced marriages were traditional, after all.

Europe blinked. The societies that had once said: “this burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs” no longer had the self-confidence to impose its will on the outsiders. The elites were still nervous about the resurgence of nationalism, so they did their best to smooth over the problem.

Their solution to this problem was to promote the doctrine of multiculturalism, the belief that all societies - at base - were equal. This was based on an insultingly obvious lie and a cringingly unavoidable contradiction. The lie was the claim that all societies were equal - a society that believes in equal rights for women is far superior to one that believes that women are second-class at best, chattel at worst - and the contradiction was that everyone believed in the doctrine of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, in short, was based on a premise that all cultures were of one mind on the matter of multiculturalism. By its very nature, multiculturalism proved that multiculturalism did not work - and never could.

And yet, those who disagreed with the premise were attacked as racists. There was no attempt to study the problem logically - there could be no such attempt, as far as the elites were concerned - and so the problem continued to fester. Or, put another way, European law largely surrendered control over the territories. As native power and authority receded, elements that wanted autonomy gained in power.

This was disastrous. Young men raised within the communities, for example, were not taught to accept that women were equal. Women did not have control over their own bodies. A girl might be defended by her family, but she could not defend herself. Young men, raised on something that might well be called rape culture and imbued with barbaric views on women, knowing better than to touch a girl with a family that might avenge her (but also might insist she married her rapist to restore the family honour), caused no end of trouble with ‘white sluts.’ This problem is hardly unique, either. Serious sexual assaults are alarmingly common in countries where women are regarded as second-class citizens.

There was a second effect that was not noticed at the time, although it should have been predictable. Dissidents within the communities were either driven out or silenced. The problem with looking for moderate Muslims is not that they don’t exist, but that any moderate Muslim with half a brain knows that if he sticks his head up he’ll lose it. A combination of the unwillingness of the native law to defend free speech and the absolute willingness of the extremists to crush it has silenced most of the moderates. Those who are not silent live in fear for their lives.

The problems facing Europe now - after 9/11, after Paris, after Cologne - are twofold. First, there is the presence of large communities that are disconnected from the native culture, that do not share its views, that are dominated by aggressive and forceful leaders intent on stamping their values on everyone else. Attacks on natives, Jews, women and everyone who dares support Israel or speak out against Islam are increasing rapidly. A climate of fear is spreading its wings over Europe.

The vast majority of those communities may not be violent, but it doesn't matter. A relative handful of insurgents, as the British discovered in Northern Ireland, can make life difficult for the authorities for years. Ordinary Irish citizens either supported the insurgents, even if they weren't actual fighters themselves, or were intimidated into silence. It is far too easy to imagine community leaders in the no-go zones refusing to hand over suspects to the police, because they would probably lose their positions - and their heads - if they did.

The second problem, however, is the feckless behaviour of the European elites, particularly Germany. Opening up the borders and allowing uncounted numbers of migrants, mainly young men, to enter was utterly insane. It was preposterous to believe that they would automatically embrace European values, when they were neither raised in them nor given a strong reason to assimilate. Instead, raised in societies where trusting someone outside your family is stupid, they represent a major danger to European society. The European elites were willing to sacrifice the peace and safety of European citizens so they could feel good about themselves. And the attacks on New Year’s Eve have blown their desperate attempts to cover up the scale of the problem right out of the water.

I rather doubt the next five years are going to be peaceful.

The question now is simple; can European governments, and Europeans themselves, muster the strength to tackle the problem before it becomes any worse?

Frankly, there are only a handful of possible outcomes. Resolute steps now may stem the crisis without mass slaughter and effective genocide. This requires European governments to work up the nerve to take action and swallow the criticism they will receive from their fellow-travellers on the left. Alternatively, strong right-wing governments may be elected, which will have a brief to crush the threat using all necessary measures. The problem with electing a strong man, as many countries have found out to their cost, is that getting rid of him after he has served his purpose is incredibly difficult.

But those are the cheerful options. The others include mass flight from Europe, civil war, balkanisation and a descent into the darkness currently enwrapping the Middle East in its shroud.

I will address the steps European Governments can take, now, to deal with the crisis in the next article.

124 Comments:

What this means – to go back to the lion and lamb motif – is that you are now the lamb, and any teeth you had have been removed, and you secretly went vegan after reading some books Deepak Chopra lent you.

And now as you snuggle up next to the lion your entire survival strategy is predicated on the lion having read the same books and feeling the same way about what he read as you do.

This is probably one of the best, most clearly thought-out articles I have read about this topic.

I think the best chance of saving Europe lies not in expecting nationalist parties to win power (which will be very hard), but nationalist and anti-immigration people in mainsteam right-wing parties to take control of those parties. Jeremy Corbyn, an Islamist friendly far-leftist now has the power in LaborUK party. He is clearly much more radical than the party has been in the last few decades. Imagine if someone like Farage or Trump became the leader of Conservative Party? The party already has a huge voter base. They are likely to win in 2020 for the third time. UKIP on the other hand is struggling to grow.

One can only hope. The elites have important decisions to make. Internal party politics will have a huge impact on the future of Europe, or so I hope, in the coming years.

Generally interesting, but author still has half his head in the blue pill.

"a society that believes in equal rights for women is far superior to one that believes that women are second-class at best, chattel at worst"

It's clear to anyone with a bit of common sense who's done some reading by this point, that women's liberation and suffrage were perhaps the two largest contributing factors to the decline of traditional western society, and the gradual adoption of progressive values.

Women are most use to society raising happy families, not playing at being second-rate men wasting their fertile years in office cubicles. And as soon as women start to enter positions of power within a society, policy begins to be influenced more and more strongly by emotion instead of reason.

Women's "liberation" is code for attacking the Christian Patriarchy that shamed sluts and kept women's sexual libidos in check for the health, safety, and eternal salvation of men, women, children, and society at large.

Pornography, pushed by Jewish revolutionary bankers and power-brokers in Hollywood and the media, started filling the minds of men and women in Europe and America with lust-filled fantasies, aka fornication of all sorts packaged as "romance". Romantic love became the idol that women, and then men, began to worship, along with worldly success and money. Usury and debt enslaved them all to the banks, even the governments. Who owns the banks? Hmmm.

Christian men and women alike failed to stand strong against the attack, partly due to the heart and soul of the West being gutted through two world wars and non-stop communist/marxist agitation and revolutionary activity. Once again, all financed and pushed intellectually and politically by Jewish revolutionaries who hate The Cross and see Jewish domination as the just end of history.

Throw in all sorts of nonsense about chasing money (Moloch) and satisfying your 'dreams' (aka wordly desires), give the women the vote so they can be emotionally manipulated to vote against their own men and civilzation, kill off the strongest and bravest, manliest of those men for two straight generations, let the next generation or two be raised by women and weak, effeminate, neutered men, then fill them with pacifist, "nice Christian guy" propaganda in schools and media for 70 years... and you have the handbasket we're sitting in. And it's going somewhere.

"a society that believes in equal rights for women is far superior to one that believes that women are second-class at best, chattel at worst"

I agree. I thought that was the weak point as well; although it is possible that he was only referring to the difference between the traditional West, in which women were not the political equals of men, but were nevertheless respected and valued in their own right, and the Eastern cultures where they are not, it seems more likely that he is describing the modern equalitarian position that is proving to be intrinsically dyscivic and even dyscivilizational.

The post WWII era saw many modern contrivances meant to convince us that mankind could improve.

First, in response to the internationalist movement and a capitulation to the craven desires of the human heart, the west began its post-Christian era. In the US, Bible reading and prayer were banned from schoolsSecond, increasing in its breadth, the Frankfurt School took over the education system. The multicultural, all societies are equal, and thus all religions are equally societal constructs philosophy took over.The terror of WWII had the never-again crowd going, and it wasn't just about genocide. The whole war crimes thing blossomed at Nuermburg and grew into a philosophy that places ridiculous restraint on Western soldiers today.At the end of the Cold War, one of the last lines of defense of US political philosophy died too, anti-communism. Although our beliefs in God and American exceptionalism were fading, at least we knew we weren't to be communists. (For my first job in the late 1970s, as a kitchen helper in my junior high cafeteria, I had to sign a form swearing that I was not a communist).

The end of anti communism as official policy seemed to open the floodgates of increasing socialism and multiculturalism in America. And the liberal elite was convincing us that we should be more like socialist Europe.

All this continued so that we lack confidence in God, in America as a Constitutional ideal, in the Western culture we inherited.

This is paralyzing. It is why we haven't won a war in decades. Why we don't defend ourselves against invasion. Why we let corrupt politicians continue in their effort to destroy the nation and its traditions. It is a lack of confidence in God, in country, in knowing what is right.

Couple that with non stop entertainment culture and I dare say they now know more about the Kardashians than they know about God and the founding of our republic.

Talking with an east European / Australian friend last night, we discussed the problem the Chinese have created for themselves with a huge excess of young men whose most basic drives (wife, family, occupation) can never be satisfied, we concluded that the natural balance of excess females is a necessary element of societal existence.

But that led us directly to the next point, that democracy cannot long coexist with a female franchise either, because that majority of female voters simply do not think as do men. The denial of fundamental differences between the sexes is suicidal madness.

Very good analysis of the mechanics behind multiculturalism. Two relatively minor points I'd disagree with:

1. This article, like most others, over states the ennervation created by WWII and understates the role of top-down propaganda in creating that malaise. Poland got the worst of it in WWII and it's openly nationlistic today. Germany and much of Western Europe had skinheads and other community-level nativity but it was heavily stomped out by the gov and media. My view is that the political correctness campaign that launched in the early 90s is the key, if not the sole, driver behind West European psychological state today.

2. I cringed when reading the part about the first wave of Brown immigrants being a "blessing" because they intermarriage and try to integrate. The only blessing in their case was their small numbers.

That particular passage struck me as an effort to reach out to a wider audience, but such rhetoric usually fails. It aims for broadmindedness in effect, but comes off as an unprincipled concession.

Merkel and the EU "leaders" are not "feckless". They know exactly what they are doing and why. At the behest of the Judeo-globalist bankers/oligarchs who control their countries' masive public debts (and their own personal "investment" Ponzis), they are attempting to liquidate the White populations and replace them with even more obedient, collectivizable ethnoids. And, except for several ex-communist eastern European nations with strong traditions of anti-Jewism (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Russia), they are more than likely to get away with it. Contra Vox and friend, there will be no "far"-Right uprisings, electoral or otherwise, in Britain, France, Germany, or the part of the even more locked-into-self-liquidation Scandanavian Whites. In this connection, see Paul Gottfried's current essay @ http://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/paul-gottfried/disgusted-germans/

I find this article extremely deficient in that it doesn't mention the influence of Marxism in Europe, Jewish Influence in pushing multiculturalism, the influence of British Freemasonry ideas on multiculturalism, the penance due to Holocaustinity, the pernicious efforts of George Soros and his "Open Society" movement. All of this is missing from the article.

Furthermore, this article in its first part fails, fails to mention the Catholic Church! If Vox Populi is nominally Christian and seeks to promote a Christian idea--the total and complete absence of the Catholic Church pre- and post-French Revolution is astonishing. The Catholic Church pre-Fr. Rev. that prevented Muslim incursion and suppression of Jews to post-Fr. Rev. that has adopted Cultural Marxism and is abetting now in the furthering Multiculturalism in Europe.

The Crisis of Europe is that it rejected its Faith, its Church, Its Religion, the Roman Catholic Church. It lost the favor of God, and so God turned over Europe to her enemies. Just like God turned the Hebrews to their enemies when they sinned.

And finally, the effect of Americanization of Europe is completely gone from this article. The EU and the opening of citizenship to ethnic European countries to non-ethnic European peoples is all aping Masonic America.

Part I fails to mention the most salient points of the Immigration debacle. If you can't read correctly the cause of the problem, one surely can't find the answer.

"The second problem, however, is the feckless behaviour of the European elites, particularly Germany. Opening up the borders and allowing uncounted numbers of migrants, mainly young men, to enter was utterly insanThe second problem, however, is the feckless behaviour of the European elites, particularly Germany. Opening up the borders and allowing uncounted numbers of migrants, mainly young men, to enter was utterly insane."

I disagree. Evil, certainly, but from the perspective of the banking and political elite not insane. I suspect the current mass invasion of Europe is being allowed because the Rothschilds et al have calculated that they won't be able to keep a lid on the financial mess much longer. They are importing these savages with the plan that the mobs will direct their murderous rage toward them when the welfare state collapses. It's enough to almost make me feel sorry for these dupes. Almost.

Rome committed suicide a very long time before Rome itself was stormed.

Societal apoptosis. I argue that today's metastatic LBGT/immivasion insanity is a failure of political apoptosis. The D/R two-winged bird of prey is a cancer.

Meanwhile, there was also a serious need to curb the appeal of communism. Post-war Europeans were desperate. The USSR might not need to invade to take over. European elites countered this by creating both a social welfare system

Equality of women means a very different thing in a limited government that only handles collective security (defense, crime) than it does in a welfare state. It also means something different in Christendom where women and men know their places - gender runs deep - into the soul, and cannot be reassigned.The original Christian Cuck-up was accepting contraception. Women lost their equal dignity and became objects. Children an afterthought.Even the Nazis encouraged Aryan mothers to have lots of children, but what of the Nationalists today? More and more traditional Christians are rejecting barrenness and having large families.If the Nationalists have a fatal flaw, it is that they don't want to restore Christendom, but retain secularism (and "big government" Socialism). They wish to be atheists or pagans (think ancient Rome and their temples).In hoc signo vinces

Since World War One the goal was to smash the aristocratic order and replace it with democracy (tm), which is the same as saying socialism, which is the same as saying totalitarian political structures of one sort or another.

Paradoxically, democracy, NOT aristocracy, produces a Total State where every aspect of human existence is subject to control by competing factions.

Like all "foreign aid," the Marshall Plan pours power into the hands of caretaker-rulers, producing in Europe the same Power-Center politics as it does in Africa.

The crisis of Immivasion is a direct result of a particularly virulent political faction seizing control of the Power Structures nurtured after WW2. This is what happens when you combine an excessively powerful political center with the caretaker-renter scum-rises-to-the-top of democratic despotism.

If your king went off his rocker and began taking his country into the sewer, someone in the succession would kill him to preserve the capital value of the nation itself.

Under democratic forms, when a pathological faction occupies the throne, all that happens is other factions either get in line to suckle at the vampire's tits or scheme to replace the top faction and resume the exact same despoilment of the nation (concentrated benefit, diffuse costs.)

Democracy as a form of government must always eventually produce conflagration; today's growing catastrophes are simply the particular form this iteration has assumed.

"There are, I should note before I go any further, two different types of immigration. The first is the single person or handful of people who move to a new country and adapt to their new environment. They speak the language, they marry natives and generally they repay their hosts for welcoming them. Such immigrants are a blessing and very few people would argue otherwise."

Count me one of the few. In the history of immigration, the first type of immigrant is largely a dangerous fantasy, a red herring displayed by those who want to import barbarian hordes. This fantasy about some type of immigrants being a "blessing" is what prevents the conversation from moving to a discussion of the obvious superiority of a closed borders, ethnically cohesive nation-state (e.g., Japan, although I would argue even there immigration has become excessive).

Instead, we must wait until we're confronted with a class of immigrant that regularly engages in political violence before the incompatibility of immigrants with cultural survival even enters the mainstream political discussion. Self-interest would have dictated keeping out almost all post-1890 immigrants because of their mental, physical, financial and cultural inferiority. Even if you grant all the Jeb-style arguments with respect to some small, poorly defined group of immigrant, self-respect should be enough for the public to demand that even these hardworking, "blessing" bestowing migrants are generally kept out merely because of the fact that they are different and incompatible with the native culture.

@Bobby FarrCount me one of the few. In the history of immigration, the first type of immigrant is largely a dangerous fantasy, a red herring displayed by those who want to import barbarian hordes.

I'm going to play a bit of a devil's advocate here - it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that not every "first-type" immigrant is going to be a blessing, but does that mean it would be a net benefit to completely wipe out every immigration?

Intermarriage is still possible and probably will happen, despite banning all immigration. Tourism is still a thing, after all, and even if foreign tourism is banned in your country, it probably wouldn't be banned in foreign countries.

So then, is it more beneficial to a society to have a possibly immigrant father and have a together nuclear family, or to have a single mother raising a mixed baby of whatever race it is, or to send every woman who miscegenates to wherever the father is from (if it's even feasible)?

There are, I should note before I go any further, two different types of immigration. The first is the single person or handful of people who move to a new country and adapt to their new environment. They speak the language, they marry natives and generally they repay their hosts for welcoming them. Such immigrants are a blessing and very few people would argue otherwise. They may look different, but they’re largely culturally identical to the natives.

This is actually a fairly accurate description of me, personally. I'm a non-resident alien in the US, working here and waiting on my green card, obtained through the correct legal channels and not through shortcuts. I speak English better than most Americans. I agree entirely with American values and regard the Constitution as basically Holy Writ. I'm ideologically far more right-wing than most conservatives- to the point where my own sister calls me a redneck. I work and pay taxes here, I leave people alone, and I have no desire to bring the culture I was born into over here.

Except for the fact that I'm unmarried, the author might as well have replaced that paragraph with my picture.

Unfortunatley, the author's assertions about most people like me is still quite wide of the mark.

Most of the folk who came to the US from the same part of the world that I'm from, DID NOT marry white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They married Americanised versions of their own people, or liberal Jews, or other Asians from areas not too dissimilar from their own.

Their children may consider themselves American, but they retain many of the same liberal, dyscivic values their parents brought with them. It's a well-known demographic reality that Asian-Americans range from moderately to highly liberal and skew heavily Democrat.

As always, immigration ONLY works when: a) immigrants adopt the host culture completely; and b) when their native culture is very similar to the host culture to begin with. People seem to keep forgetting the importance of part (b).

It's also notable that Tocqueville wrote of political society and civil society equally.

Today there is no such thing as civil society; political society has entirely overwhelmed and subsumed civil society to the point where the political apparatus is used to destroy those who try to coexist apart from political centralization.

I too, find the absence of any discussion of marxism renders the analysis deficient. It offers a plausible explanation for what happened in Europe, but doesn't explain why a similar result (not muslim, but hispanic) happened to the USA, which did not suffer the same post-war destruction or fears that Europe did.

It also ignores the overlap between marxists/multiculti/anti-white supporters.

As others noted, I find a number of major weaknesses in the author's argument. First is his position on women. Yes, he could merely be arguing a woman's position in Christianity (which is NOT equalitarian) versus a woman's position under Mohammedism, but I don't believe that's what he's doing. The reflexive genuflection to women's utter equality to men, besides ignoring genetic differences and promoting behavior inimical to well structured, and innately hierarchical societies, is deadly.

The second, and I would argue more critical error, is that the author makes no clear mention of race. There is a brief mention that some of those "few" immigrants who intermarry and utterly integrate in their host society "may look different," but that's about it. To instead focus on different cultures or ethos, while ignoring that the very basis of those different cultures is inherent in the immigrants' DNA, is basically a denial of HBD. Obviously, I'm not a total biological determinist, particularly since I'm one of those few different who's totally assimilated (great-grandchild of immigrants but not of a visually different race). I still recognize that the vast majority of my co-ethnics - even those who are great-great-great grandchildren in many cases - still hold different values and yet consider themselves and those values inherently American. That thinking (that their inherent difference is equally American) is what birthed multiculturalism and destroyed the American republic.

There is no World. These globalists are delusional Satanists that have no way to win. This polyglot of filth and depravity is a last ditch effort for greedy idiots to save their skins. They've bankrupted Europe and the United States. China is broke, and Russia is also seeing shortfalls in the budget. These idiots bankrupted the Entire Earth. I didn't think that was even possible, but with this race to the bottom for cheaper labor, there isn't a single country that isn't broke now. There's gonna be a War. Whenever these morons bankrupt the State they gin up a War to save their skins. Its not gonna work this time, because we know who did this and it happened before.

I am minded of the kinds of things that dumb Republican commentators said when Obama first entered the Presidency. They say, "He can't be that bad. If he wants to succeed as President, he'll have to do 'X'. There's no other option."

What they didn't realize is that he didn't want to succeed. He did not have the same victory conditions they did. He didn't do 'X' because he was working towards an entirely different goal state. And that goal state looks like failure to us, but not to him.

So I see that action in the 'what European governments will have to do.'

Fortunately he goes on to state just how unlikely it is and what the real other options are likely to occur.

As they said in Babylon 5, "The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

Increasingly, I find myself doubting the "wow, they fucked up" political idea.

As bin Laden said, people admire the strong horse, not the weak horse. Think of all the women attracted to "bad boys". Note the 'traditional' homosexual cultural stereotypes, male and female of heavily butch and highly effeminate roles, There's a reason for that pattern.

So I think the question is not, 'How could they make the mistake of letting in the barbarians?' The real question is 'How much of this was a mistake, and how much of this was a deliberate longing for the strength that Europe threw away?'

"This requires European governments to work up the nerve to take action and swallow the criticism they will receive from their fellow-travellers [sic] on the left."Hardly a likely outcome: SJWs always double-down.

I don't have much to add to the excellent comments already posted. Just that when the food and fresh water start to run short, the whole notion of immigration as something with a benign aspect to it is going to be regarded as lunacy.

It for sure was not a mistake in the sense that it was totally conscious and deliberate. It might be a mistake in the sense that they assume they're immune to the consequences and that could be a fatal error.

As for why they did it, they know that cultural cohesion is their enemy. Aka divide and conquer.

A dissident trapped within such a community, like a girl who doesn’t want to be forced into marriage, has very little hope of leaving it. And if she does, she is cut off from the community forever.

Sadly this is all too true. My wife has a good friend who is Indian and she was cut off from her family by her father because she married a Caucasian gentleman. I've heard that her mother was especially devastated, but given the culture she hasn't gone against her husband wishes in regards to maintaining contact with her daughter. It's a sad situation, however, having met her husband a few times I can say she chose a good man to marry.

@14 paworldandtimes:I think this piece is dead on the money. The World Wars - the Second Thirty Years War - were fought with a ferocity that shook Europe's confidence in their status as civilized people to the core. Poland may not be terribly affected, but Poland is one of the few nations that can't be accused of either starting or failing to prevent a major conflict.

@32 Stephen:Interesting point. My observation has been that Europe suffers from a massive lack of confidence due to the World Wars. This is magnified by the loss of Great Power status by the UK and France, and the general blame attached to Germany for the Holocaust. Having said that, the ruling classes seem far less confident than the average person.

I'll add an observation of my own - one area not mentioned was the lack of a latter-day Treaty of Westphalia. The Thirty Years War of the early 1600s shocked Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia and the adoption of Laws of Warfare allowed Europe to say, "We made a mistake and lost control. The problem has been recognized and corrected." There was no such treaty after the World Wars, merely tacit understandings that certain forms of warfare were morally repugnant...but not described as war crimes.

It would be VERY interesting to see what the Russian response would be to a Second Treaty of Westphalia that would again limit warfare.

Imagine if a few trucks began taking sustained fire on the nation's highways. In short order, food distribution could grind to a halt. Three days later all hell breaks loose.

In the event of enough social strife the long supply lines of US grocery stores will be thoroughly disrupted. The USA could become one big Sarajevo until shorter, more defensible supply chains were established.

That is the reason I joined the Catholic Church. Even back when I was an atheist, I saw that contraception divided the sexual impulse from the civilizing effect of childrearing. Contraception demeans and abolishes romance, hence eliminates chivalry, hence put women back into the low status as chattel they knew in pagan days, before the enlightenment of what are absurdly called the Dark Ages.

I could not in good conscience join a denomination that betrayed the nineteen hundred year old teaching of the Church about contraception (yes, the Romans had it, it just was not as efficient as ours).

Whatever the advantages or theological or legal arguments to prefer some newer breakaway denomination to the Catholics, the inability of newer denominations to stand fast on the issue of contraception was a deal-breaker for me.

I was shocked to learn that before the 1930s it was the teaching of all denominations that contraception was a grave moral evil.

Like many commenters above, what struck me most about this generally well-written (if not especially original) summation of the situation was the unthinking acceptance and promotion of the ideology that is the very knife the West has used for its own suicide.

Slight paraphrase of the OP for effect: "Gender equality" is based on an insultingly obvious lie and a cringingly unavoidable contradiction. The lie is the claim that the sexes are equal ... and the contradiction is that everyone believes it. By its very nature, sexual equality has proved that sexual equality does not work - and never can.

"Equality" of the sexes, once accepted, has led to all the other "equalities", e.g. equivalency of homoerotic fixation with real sexuality, and the idea that "all cultures are equal". I've read that in Europe, some "progressives" have been calling for giving the vote to children; after all, shouldn't they have a voice in their own future? Animals will be next, I suppose.

@20 tz:

Equality of women means a very different thing in a limited government that only handles collective security (defense, crime) than it does in a welfare state.

The first situation is an impossibility, as (political) equality of women inevitably leads to a welfare state. There is no other possible outcome, given female psychology. A few women may be persuaded to think hard enough to see that a "limited government" will in the long run be better for them too, but in the short run the welfare state is far more attractive, not only to those few (it's like putting a big plate of chocolate before them but telling them they can't eat it if they don't want to get fat down the line), but overwhelmingly so to the vast majority of women who will never think about such rarefied subjects.

I was grateful to Aaron Russo not only for his fine production America: Freedom to Fascism, but also for one of his publicity posters, with this quote from GB Shaw: "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." I would only add – as well as the vast majority of women.

I'm old enough to remember when women in America and other Western countries did not dress and act like whores. Those few that did were shamed and shunned by the community of women. When I was a young man, such a thing as a "slutwalk" would have been – literally was – unthinkable.

The bottom line is, as with most diseases, the invading pathogens may seem to be the most obvious cause, but the real cause is that they have been invited in by our own behavior.

When there are high standards as barriers to entry, someone who wakes up that they belong on the other side, that they don't fit in with their native culture, that is the immigrant or refugee to allow in - to a club or country.Consider a woman who IS good in a STEM field and does excellent work. A man who is entrepreneurial in a socialist country.The corollary is if someone is the same race, gender, etc. but is acting like something else, throw him over the wall to where his Utopian ideas are already running so he will feel at home. E.g. mercilessly eject SJWs, but offer to buy them Cologne, as in a one way ticket to.

Does Vox have a policy on the JQ? Are we allowed to talk about it? Because it seems preposterous to me to talk about "multiculturalism" without talking about the one particular ethnic group that created and promoted it in the West.

As far as I know, the rule of thumb is no monomania, that is to obsessively harp on the same thing over and over and over again, regardless of the topic.

Regarding the Eskimos, so what? The only tricky thing is to realize they are their own race and not German/Polish/French/English, and efforts to keep a nation genetically homogeneous will already block them out.

They're gonna do what they're gonna do, much like Mexicans gonna Mexican, Arabs gonna Arab, and so forth and so on. I can't think of much else to talk about that hasn't been covered already ad nauseum.

Consider how few routes there are across the Cascades, or other natural barriers. This doesn't even require the expected 9.5 quake from the Cascadia fault or Mt Ranier. They can't even keep the roads reliably open in winter. I'm in the surplus side of several worse than the Cascades.

@43 It depends, on the farm or ranch, women learn there is no free lunch. Progressivism in Ag results in dead animals and bankruptcy. Wyoming's 1869 grant wasn't a problem. Note how Susan B and Lizzie K didn't want to vote with their feet. Progressive Men convinced others to let a bunch of others into the system, we got Wilson. Like Obama's open door for immigrants today.

Much of this could have been seen in the black ghettos of the US, if anyone had cared to look. The melting pot can work, if allowed to. The salads bowl, however, is unworkable, even if the miscreants are natives like the blacks.

@42 - http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/01/anglicans-come-home-2/Some Anglicans are taking the last exit on the highway to hell.I had a similar rejection of Protestantism. How could they say "sola scriptura" and collectively do a complete 180 (anathema to blessing) on a grave issue after 400 years of their own interpretation, and it wasn't kooky liberals or Unitarians but mainline, conservative fundamentalists.

@50 but isn't a discussion about, say, multiculturalism, necessarily (assuming it is an honest discussion) going to have to involve discussion of Jews given that (say) multiculturalism is a demonstrably Jewish ideology?

isn't a discussion about, say, multiculturalism, necessarily (assuming it is an honest discussion) going to have to involve discussion of Jews given that (say) multiculturalism is a demonstrably Jewish ideology?

No, because that is a tangent at best. Look, you're not fooling anyone. You're not the first person who desperately wants to talk about Jews all the time and constantly looks for a justification to do so.

Don't even bother trying. As was correctly noted above, I don't permit monomanias.

. In the history of immigration, the first type of immigrant is largely a dangerous fantasy, a red herring displayed by those who want to import barbarian hordes.

Oh, the first type of immigrant exists, but his distinguishing characteristic is not his personality or temperament, but rather his extremely small numbers. The first type of immigrant is defined by being too few in number to have any impact on the host culture. Once there are enough immigrants to exert any significant impact on the host culture, they de facto cease being the first type of immigrant and become the second type.

The fantasy isn't that the first type exists, but that a horde of the first type can exist. And yes, that is a very dangerous fantasy indeed.

I don't think intermarriage with foreigners would help sustain civilization. For example, it didn't see to create much integration in Latin America, which is extremely violent and has a history rich in civil conflicts, even if it's true that say, the average Brazilian no longer thinks of himself as a Portuguese or African but only as Brazilian.

I actually believe losing the genetic uniqueness of Europeans would be a disaster greater than the loss of civilization.

It is Europeans who look different from the rest of the world, and the loss of their beauty is not just a small thing.

This was a very insightful article, but it glosses over an important point. It mentions Europe's post-WW2 fear of nationalism and militarism. However, it ignores that fear as an explanation of current behavior.

I think that a lot of people fear nationalism today because they think it will lead to violence, whether it's ultra-nationalism or militarism. Does anyone here have a way to prevent those elements from creeping into nationalist politics?

Oh, the first type of immigrant exists, but his distinguishing characteristic is not his personality or temperament, but rather his extremely small numbers. The first type of immigrant is defined by being too few in number to have any impact on the host culture.

^This.

Very true. I can count the total number of such people that I've met during my nearly 10 years in the US on the fingers of one hand. And even that is a stretch. The reality is that most immigrants want to retain as much of their native cultures as possible and, if they discard anything at all, only ever discard the bits that simply are not workable in their new environments.

I think it goes without saying that there are instances where one person has moved from one country to another and not cased harm to the host country. My point was that we should reject the idea of immigrants of any type being a "blessing." The result of such a delusion is an immigration system that, instead of focusing on maintaining homogeneity, creates all sorts of avenues of entry in the hopes of identifying and admitting these heroic blessing bestowing foreigners, whether because of their supposed technical skills, family values, work ethic, etc. National identity is not synonymous with merit and the greatest foreigner doesn't magically become a native by virtue of his fine character any more than he becomes a native by virtue of standing on magic dirt.

A free society will necessarily have some level of immigration to the extent natives choose to marry foreigners and perhaps in other unusual circumstances but the number would be demographically insignificant.

I hadn't thought of how dangerous Europe's position was during the Cold War. Europe had to simultaneously incite and restrain the US against the USSR to avoid being nuked. The strategy is obvious now that I've read it, of course. This is interesting stuff. I'm looking forward to part two.

Not for Russia or the U.S., though you go on not to count them because they aren't European. Which in America's case is obvious but in Russia's case is dubious. Anyway, I think a strong case can be made that the U.S. was picking up where the British empire left off, and operated according to the same justifications. Also, Britain was precluded from joining in gross displays of nationalism and militarism not because either had been discredited but simply because they lacked the money and power.

Man....Saker has gone full Cuck with that article. Basically blaming the Victims in a round-a-bout nebulous way....just like a SJW.

I get it, I truly get it now. Trying to be fair about us Whites in our pros and cons is NOT shared by any other race or by the traitors in our midsts. This is the article that buried my last vestige of "white guilt".

Fuck 'em all. Let God sort them out after they have their DOTR and are sent to meet Him.

They are importing these savages with the plan that the mobs will direct their murderous rage toward them when the welfare state collapses. U PC BRO?

Certainly one possibility. The ramp up of the Race schtick is just too obvious at this point, right up in the face of 200 million US whites.

Laughable.Nazism = National SocialismCommunism = International SocialismFabianism = Democratic SocialismGee, there's a theme here. The trend was toward socialism, only the specific path was in doubt. Socialism is the apogee of (the Elite's) political organization of society.We're there.

Yes. Was going to note exact same. G E Griffin notes the desire for a "merger of the US and former Soviet Union". One would be hard pressed to deny that that is exactly what has happened.

European law largely surrendered.. Guest Post

It's always funny to watch Cucks and Churchians fall back on "equality before the Law" without noting this : the Law was once one thing and it is now entirely something other - and the troubles are the result of the latter purposeful overthrow and changes and ignoring of the previously existing "Law" (under which the West and its progeny was much better off. "Equal protection under the Law" now simply means Egalitarianism.

Also his noting of the discrediting of Nationalism through WWI and II is understated, but stated none the less, and spot on. That looks to be their most important purpose and outcome (though, interestingly, one particular people was given a right to Nationalism as a direct result, while everyone else had theirs increasingly eroded).

@4-That quote is a rhetorical mess. I can't tell whether he's presenting a false dichotomy or simply conflicting anything less that equal status between men and women with female slavery. Certainly the upshot is that unequal status might as well be slavery, which is ridiculous. If you can't argue for sex equality--whatever that might entail--without playing the slavery card you can't argue well.

@56 Not at all Day! I'm not a mono on this topic. Go back and look at every comment I've ever posted here and you will see that I have never mentioned the JQ at all (so far as I remember...). The only reason I brought it up at all is because this article had heavy references to multiculturalism but no references to where that ideology came from. I will abstain from talking about Jews as I suspected it was an off-limits topic here and I respect that.

WW2 was just an extension of WW1. It's better remembered because the Holocaust can be used as an attack against whites, but the Great War was the conflict that truly broke the West's spirit (it's also when Communism took over Russia, and the Federal Reserve took over America).

Second, he doesn't mention the extensive subversion of Western governments by Communist agitators.

Automation means that many people, many men lack the means to gain resources to sustain a family. They are in classic "commie" cut off from the means of production.

Its an amplification of an old problem,

Heck the population collapse of the Irish Potato Famine which they have never recovered from or the late family formation in the Middle Ages (about the same as now in some areas) any of the hundreds of other related issues. Its all the same.

Its also getting worse as machines get smarter, factory automation helped kill peak American wealth and many many other jobs at every IQ level are on the block. Heck even things like tax preparation software, pdf publishing software or online travel planners are job killers

This isn't a bad thing however if too many people don't have work, you speed up collapse

And no there is no "libertarian" or "capitalist" economic policy choice that can help long term .

You could let them work 4 year olds to death in mines but s soon as machines get cheaper, people get laid off.

Machines do too many jobs, no family formation. Human social carrying capacity.

And before anyone brings up peak Christendom as a solution, the vast majority of people in Feudal Europe had little economic liberty of any kind. They were constrained by material limits, social law and custom (even freemen) and the massive economic regulation of the Church. It wasn't close to Capitalist

I suspect that Marx was correct in noting the effects of automation and it seems in the inevitability of Socialism.

If that is the case the trick is making it work. Homogeneity comes first, homogeneous societies tolerate more control without chafing.

Under any sort of system, Feudal, Regulated Capitalism, Socialism of Democratic, Workers, Marxist variety whatever you'll certainly end up with less growth, less advancement and less productivity but you might manage to keep things fairly stable.

Only however if its homogeneous. That is the issue. Not economics. European lands for Europeans and the tiny number of truly civilized folk only and you have a start.

arguing about economic systems while your house is burning is a failure point, Fact os Europe could go full Commie so long as its not socially totalitarian and still be Europe. It can't if its full of Africans and Arabs

"a society that believes in equal rights for women is far superior to one that believes that women are second-class at best, chattel at worst"

As a reasonably high-IQ, fact-driven woman, I have surprisingly mixed feelings about this. Last month, I was telling my husband, only half-joking, that maybe women shouldn't get to vote, if they can't do any better. Too many women have betrayed their men, betrayed their sons, betrayed their country by selling out to feel-good emotions that don't work in the real world.

Too many women, IMO, prefer mercy to justice, which feels good short-term, but destroys civilizations in the long-term.

That being said, the problem isn't that women vote. The problem is that too many people have the right to vote when they don't have any skin in the game.

For one thing, if you're on welfare, you should not get to vote. But there's the rub.... women will almost always say, "It's unfair to deny these poor people the right to vote," and then we're right back where we started.

Things will likely only change when there's real scarcity, which means there is a real and immediate cost to supporting destructive policies.

@73 The solution I came to in my own mind is that if we're going to have a democracy, then the subject of the franchise should not be the individual, but the family. One family, one vote. If Mama wants to pull the lever instead of Daddy, fine. "What about single adults"? They should be accorded perhaps 1/4 of one vote, at most. I think families (as such) have much more skin in the game of governance than individuals (as such).

@67. Takin' a LookMan....Saker has gone full Cuck with that article. Basically blaming the Victims in a round-a-bout nebulous way....just like a SJW.

At first I disagreed, but as I was typing up my response and taking a harder look... you're right.

Not so much because of the victim-blaming, but more of the airs of inevitability of the conquering of Europe. "There's no way to stop them!" he cries, incorrectly. He doesn't quite understand how different the Saudi general was from him, how different other cultures are, and just thinks of them on a superficial level.

The solution I came to in my own mind is that if we're going to have a democracy, then the subject of the franchise should not be the individual, but the family.

Interesting. I like it, especially because families are the foundation of a society's future. As a clarifying question, what about people on welfare? Under this scenario, would a family on welfare still get a vote?

Guess which side was in favor of gay marriage and which side is happy to have to worst expense after I kicked a guy out of his house being, taking my computer apart and taking a hammer to my hard drive?

In short order, food distribution could grind to a halt. Three days later all hell breaks loose.

Have you not seen the videos of when the food stamp system went down for less than a day with the massive chimpouts?

Old EZ Does Vox have a policy on the JQ? Are we allowed to talk about it?

That depends if Q=oos yes but if Q=ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos no

To those on about contraception. Its not the pill. Japan had a very low TFR when the only available contraception till the 90's was condoms

Also "women' lib" is more than partially technological in origin.

Simply in order for someone to have a well run household in say 1850 without servants, it required 40+ hours a week. That's with kids pitching in.

These days its a handful. I eat twenty healthy meals at home, keep my house and clothes clean and everything working well in a tiny number of hours.

Other than cook for me and very occasional sew (a task I detest) unless she is my/our children's mother I don't need a woman for household stuff. I can easily do her domestic work and mine too and maybe I have been Cathedral-ized I don't see anything wrong with it.

Because of vacuums, microwaves, running water, washing machines and yes the Internet, women and men have less to do at home. So unless I want a large number of children even if the the woman is loyal, she is an economic good that rapidly declines in value

And yes marriage was and always has been mainly economic. Many Western cultures wisely eschew romance.

As such, new systems are going to have to take that into account.

You might get the past back after the apocalypse maybe but if anything like modernity continues, its not going to happen.

Its best to formulate your ideas for the world one lives in, not the one that once was and it might well be a somewhat high tech post Christian one

Thank you. I'm no wordsmith and certainly am not very good at expressing my exact thoughts on "paper" as it were.

That article is getting ripped apart in the comments for good reason. It is one big mass of "it's ARE fawlt!".

To me, the victim-blaming, the despair (it's hopeless, lay back and allow your orifices to be violated) but most of all, the mewling mental knob-gobbling of the saudi and his wife....it disgusted me.

It is no different than that bitch Laurie Penny. The Culture of Critique that the enemies of the White West, whether Jews or Negros or our own White cucks...they never,ever stop. There is no humility, no humbleness, no honor. They don't have our backs and give us no quarter. So I say, no quarter given.

So how is a society, in which women are allowed to be equal to men and have their every needs taken care of by government, worked out for you?

IMO, the real issue is that Laquisha with five crack babies is considered equal to a married woman who raises five responsible children on her husband's income.

Like many of my fellow Gen-X women, I was raised to be a feminist. I can't be the only woman who discovered that our WW2 grandparents were a lot smarter than their boomer spawn when it came to the question of, "What makes a good life?"

We were sold a bill of goods. Freedom! Equality! We were taught to look down on women who were "only" housewives. Now, I think that many women would love the opportunity to be full-time home-makers. Unfortunately, men's wages have been hammered so hard that it's nearly impossible to raise a family on one income. Also, men get ass-raped in family court, which makes marriage and family a very risky proposition for intelligent men. Everything has been torn down, with little positive to take its place.

I have a theory, though, that things will shift, hopefully for the better, once the boomer generation (which is overly large and noisy) finally loses its grip on power.

The destruction of society began with him and his disciples and followers. Female equalitarianism and political power was nearly nonexistant. The idea of man as perfectable, of sexual licence as preferable to chastity; the whole proto-SJW salami began with MEN.

Sorry, but it's true.

You can probably make case that equalitarianism vastly increased the number of useful idiots by adding women to the ranks of pseudo-intelligencia corrupted by the academic intellectuals, but it's more likely to be a coincidence in timing.

It took place at the same time as the sexual revolution, which has had the same effect on single women that the black-power-welfare state revolution had on America's negroes.

The best analysis of the topic is in Sowell's Conflict of Visions. We should make reading it alou part of the national celebration of Burn Rousseau in Effigy Day.

One possible solution - massive arming and training of women with handguns, and teach them to shoot the bastards soon and often when threatened. Surrounded by a grope-fest? Clear leather and open up. Pretty soon, it'll sort itself out. Likely cost a few hundred thousand lives, but that's likely lower than most of the alternate methods.

Re: @88. "IMO, the real issue is that Laquisha with five crack babies is considered equal to a married woman who raises five responsible children on her husband's income."

As long as women vote feels, isn't this outcome more or less guaranteed? And if we say "everybody who is married and not DQed gets to vote," then women will simply extend the franchise to unmarried. Fail. I know too many women who vote wisely to be happy with the conclusion, but there it is.

I think 1 vote per family also fails. The family must determine who casts the vote if there's a disagreement. They may not be able to, in which case you need a tiebreaker. And the tiebreaker must be innate and exclusive, which employment and other criteria can't be. If you insert a tiebreaker provision, then you've effectively made that the criterion for voting rights. Tie goes to the man = only men are really voting.

I guess you could just say instead: "Figure it out, because if you divorce then neither of you are voting." But if current divorce laws remain in place, the real effect would be to *give women the exclusive vote,* and remove the male vote entirely. Essentially, it would = all votes determined by females, or they take your family and money. And the dynamic would swiftly ensure that a biased divorce system would become worse.

From your posts, you seem to want a Dads and Daughters society vs. a Cads and Sluts society, with Liberty in the bargain. Give this your best critique:

- Men only.- Natural-born citizen as defined (then define it). Yes, this means immigrant citizens never get to vote. Their children might.- Must be married to the same woman for at least 1 year prior to the election. Gives women some power re: their own treatment, but not over the vote. Divorced husband = no vote. How did your husband vote? Secret ballot, who knows?- Disqualified if man or wife is receiving entitlements from the state.- Disqualified if man or wife is an employee of any level of government.- Disqualified if man or wife is working for a firm that acts as a government contractor to the state or federal levels. This segregates and dramatically shrinks the direct crony class, without killing local infrastructure. You can still get Wall Street style handouts, but shutting all graft down is using this tool for something it can't do.- No changes to or repeal of these requirements by voting. Basically, you'd have to formally end the Republic and start over.

Yes, the government paid rule includes the military. No, I wouldn't offer a requirements-free vote afterward in thanks.

A Heinlein Rule creates a huge incentive to expand the military and dilute/ play games with entry requirements, in order to recruit targeted supporters. That means tyranny down the road, and failure on the battlefield. I love the idea, but if you game it out, disaster.

From your posts, you seem to want a Dads and Daughters society vs. a Cads and Sluts society, with Liberty in the bargain. Give this your best critique:

I like much of your criteria, especially the idea that those being paid by the government (even government employees) can't vote. This, it seems, would reduce corruption quite a bit. I also like the idea of limiting voting to natural born citizens.

I don't like the idea of denying a vote to those serving in the military. IMO, if someone is putting their life on the line for our country, they deserve a vote, and yes, even requirement-free for life, especially if they saw active-duty.

Another thing that troubles me (no surprise here, I'm sure) is the blanket statement that only men can vote. Here's why: IMO, voting rights should be determined by behavior, not by genitalia. What we need to focus on is equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. I'm against affirmative action in any form. On a similar note, if someone has skin in the game, they should get to vote. Maybe this would reduce the number of women eligible to vote, but I think it's a mistake to eliminate the right of intelligent, productive women to vote.

IMO, much of the trouble with voting these days comes down to skin in the game. Too many people are voting on how money is spent, when they've contributed nothing.

As a clarifying question, what about people on welfare? Under this scenario, would a family on welfare still get a vote?

If welfare isn't a government thing, does the question still have meaning?

The key to stability in government is that the people allowed to vote with ballots must be a moderately small minority, but the majority must be allowed the opportunity to vote with bullets if they don't like how the elites are running things. Membership in the elite must be slightly flexible to allow for ambitious "commoners" to have a path to power (and to expel idiots) while still preserving some stability.

The problem with allowing the majority to vote is that they have no group to fear if they abuse their power. A minority facing an armed populace has a strong incentive to manage society for everyone's benefit and to not oppress the majority lest the majority kill them.

Oh, and the majority should have a strong distrust of government. An guns. Lots of guns.

Membership in the elite must be slightly flexible to allow for ambitious "commoners" to have a path to power (and to expel idiots) while still preserving some stability.

But in a way, isn't this what we have now? Oh sure, we can all cast our ballots, but the government has stopped listening to what us lowly people want. The elites rule us, and from what I've seen lately, they fear us not at all.

Oh, and the majority should have a strong distrust of government. An guns. Lots of guns.Amen to that.

@96, Sherrie, I presume you think of yourself as one of the intelligent, productive women who should be able to vote under your idealized voting criteria - or that you would be able to qualify if you wanted?

If so, you've just illustrated in your reply to @95 that not even intelligent women should be able to vote. Because even after someone explained how easy it would be to game a permanent blanket veteran-vote privilege, you still support it, based on your feelings, not on reason. You didn't even address the gaming the system/perverse incentives issue. It bounced right off your "but that wouldn't be FAIR!" emotional reaction.

If you create a system with an obvious exploit, bad actors are guaranteed to take it.

...For one thing, if you're on welfare, you should not get to vote. But there's the rub.... women will almost always say, "It's unfair to deny these poor people the right to vote," and then we're right back where we started.

You can counter and say that poor people have the ultimate vote: torches and pitchforks. The people in France circa 1789 had no power on paper, but they had a hell of a lot of power in practice.

Sherrie, I presume you think of yourself as one of the intelligent, productive women who should be able to vote under your idealized voting criteria - or that you would be able to qualify if you wanted? Because even after someone explained how easy it would be to game a permanent blanket veteran-vote privilege, you still support it, based on your feelings, not on reason.

Yes. I do believe I would qualify. I'm intelligent, responsible, and personally pay a butt-load of income taxes. I have plenty of skin in this game, and thus, have earned a say in how that money is spent.

I just looked again, and I did not see an explanation of how "easy" it would be to game the military eligibility. Maybe I missed it. And if so, I apologize.

However, you are confusing the emotional brand of "fairness" with the logical brand of "fairness." Emotional "fairness" insists on equal outcomes. Logical "fairness" insists on equal opportunity and compensation for contributions.

If you insist on being compensated for your work, are you having an emotional reaction? Or a logical reaction? It's partly about incentives. Military pay (at least on the low levels) is rather slim. The risk is rather high. It seems a mistake to deny voting privileges to those who take on that task. You are asking people to die for a country, and then telling them that the skin they have in the game is not worthy of a vote. To me, it seems a strategic mistake, both in terms of attracting the best and brightest, and in terms of morale in times of conflict.

I contrast this with bureaucrats who are already overcoddled and overpaid. They already have plenty of incentives, so under this scenario, there is no need to further compensate them with voting rights.

How about: Any natural born citizen over 20 who pays a net annual tax (taking into account any and all government pay or retirement transfer payments) can vote the following year. If there is only one working adult in a family, then the spouse (if the family is net-qualified) can also vote. Divorce the sugar-daddy and go on the government teat, lose your vote. If you have paid net taxes in five of the last six years you get a vote (we all have bad years from time to time. Serving military members can vote; other government employees cannot. If you immigrate, you can't vote, but your kids (if born here legally) might eventually qualify. Then have a long list of disqualifications for voting, such as pleading the 5th in a criminal investigation while being a government employee.

I have a question for y'all who would like to give military personnel an exemption from the principle of "If the government butters your bread with taxpayer money, you don't get to vote on how much you receive."

Why is it that I have never seen the "they risk their lives and so have skin in the game" reasoning applied to civilians who do the same, like firefighters, police officers, border patrol, etc.?

What it looks like to me is rationalization of patriotic feeling, not reasoning from first principles, based on an idealized imagination of military service that has more in common with a recruitment ad than reality. Especially when proponents fail to address problems with the idea when someone brings them up.

Military service has always had significantly more statutory and cultural limitations to individual and personal liberties than any civilian first responder has ever had, or will ever have.

For instance: Unionization is prohibited for military personnel; public political speech is prohibited; duty stations are prescribed for military personnel, not chosen by, etc.

These non-monetary personal and political limitations and life-sacrifices are freely chosen by military personnel and should be rewarded with subsequent non-monetary privileges for the value they add to the body politic. Morality, not rationalization, demands such fair play.

I checked out your profile on blogger for a link to your books. I'm curious how I'd like them, because there are certain similarities to my own -- i.e. GenX etc.

Interesting. It would seem that we have similar tastes. About my own books, I write under a different pen name, which is why I don't link to them. Plus, my books aren't great literature by any means, even though I personally love them.

@Jack AmokThey don't fear the majority because the majority still thinks it can change things peacefully by voting. That perception is changing among the majority, but slowly.

Great analysis. Thinking about it, you're absolutely right.

@Bird on a WingThese non-monetary personal and political limitations and life-sacrifices are freely chosen by military personnel and should be rewarded with subsequent non-monetary privileges for the value they add to the body politic. Morality, not rationalization, demands such fair play.

I certainly understand if you are unwilling to associate internet IDs.

I ask because I USED TO read romances, but stopped . . . for reasons. I have recently gotten back into Georgette Heyer for a better understanding of traditional morality. I've also been re-reading Tom Brown's Schooldays and Tom Brown at Oxford for the same reason.

I think female morality is important and your chosen craft-area of entertainment has cultural significance.

Plus, my mom reads romances, and I've been trying and trying to get her to use a Kindle . . .

@105-To be fair, mandatory health insurance isn't well founded in the "basics of Western law." You'd have a hard time convincing previous generations of Westerners to accept it. Hell, I don't believe it is the law. If I have insurance it damn well isn't because I'm required to.

The reason why the military gets to vote is because they by and large vote correctly. They don't vote for bigger government, they don't vote to restrict rights, and so on. But obviously the military would have to be made all-make again. The idea of women in the military is a joke.

Bird on the Wing, thank you for the kind offer, but I'm not real interested in reading the fine print on the nice new set of goalposts you've presented.

It seems that the special pleading on behalf of military personnel boils down to "because reasons." Like I said, I've seen nothing but rationalizations for why an axiomatic principle on the limitation of the franchise should be violated for this one special class of government clients.

I suspect I categorize both voting and military service very, very differently than y'all do - though I do agree that a drastically limited franchise, even with the military exception to the principle, would likely deliver more eucivic results than our current system.

At least until the empire collapsed because the military-industrial complex ran out of foreign lands to conquer. ;)

On the contrary: Volunteers have more moral authority than reluctant draftees.

Bullshit. Cops and prosecutors volunteer for their jobs. Do they have more moral authority in a trial than the jurors?

In the context of national defense, and in the American martial tradition, volunteers have always held more moral authority than conscripts. Otherwise those recruiting posters featuring Uncle Sam would not have been effective.

You could argue that regional cultural differences play into the differing rates of volunteer service, but not that volunteers are generally regarded as possessing a higher level of masculine honor than conscripts.

You could argue that regional cultural differences play into the differing rates of volunteer service, but not that volunteers are generally regarded as possessing a higher level of masculine honor than conscripts.